Revisiting the disciplinary home of evaluation

Research Journal of the Institute for Public Relations

Vol. 3, No. 2 (February 2017)

© 2017 Institute for Public Relations

1

Revisiting the disciplinary home of evaluation:

New perspectives to inform PR evaluation standards

Jim Macnamara

Professor

School of Communication

University of Technology Sydney

Fraser Likely

Likely Communication Strategies

University of Ottawa

Abstract

From historical analysis of the early development of public relations evaluation (early 1980s to

the early 2000s), this paper shows that public relations scholarship and practice have drawn

heavily on media and communication studies in developing models and methods of evaluation,

but have not significantly engaged with the large related body of knowledge on program

evaluation. While communication and media studies are logical and formative disciplinary

homes for public relations (PR), this paper argues that PR is a transdisciplinary field and that

program evaluation is a mostly overlooked source of influence and heritage in relation to

evaluation. This analysis presents evidence that a disciplinary ‘home visit’ to program

evaluation, which nestles within program theory and theory of change, offers much to overcome

the long-standing stasis in PR evaluation and to inform the search for standards.

Keywords: PR evaluation, program evaluation, measurement, standards, effectiveness

Research Journal of the Institute for Public Relations

Vol. 3, No. 2 (February 2017)

© 2017 Institute for Public Relations

2

Introduction – why revisiting disciplinary homes is necessary

Evaluation methods for PR have been discussed for a century since Edward Bernays

described PR as an applied social science that could be “precisely evaluated” (Watson, 2012, p.

391) and Arthur Page advocated use of opinion research (Likely & Watson, 2013). Likely and

Watson (2013) noted that the search has received intensive focus over the past 40 years.

Nevertheless, the search for PR evaluation models and methods has been likened to the search

for the Holy Grail (L’Etang, 2008; Pavlik, 1987). Despite considerable efforts and some

progress, Gregory and Watson (2008) lamented a “stasis” in PR evaluation and a number of

studies since have confirmed a lack of implementation of evaluation, particularly at the level of

achieving organisational objectives (Cacciatore, Meng, & Berger, 2016; Wright, Gaunt,

Leggetter, Daniels, & Zerfass, 2009; Wright & Hinson, 2012; Zerfass, Verčič, Verhoeven,

Moreno, & Tench, 2012) . Also, scholars and practitioners alike have lamented a lack of

standards in PR evaluation (Michaelson & Stacks, 2011). As recently as 2015, Macnamara

described PR evaluation as caught in a “deadlock” (Macnamara, 2014, 2015).

This paper presents historical analysis of the first 20 years of this intensive period of

development of PR evaluation from the early 1980s to the early 2000s and compares and

contrasts this with the development of program evaluation in other fields, particularly the

application of theory of change, program theory, and program evaluation frameworks and tools.

While this body of knowledge was developed around the same time, it has been drawn on only

occasionally in PR and has been largely forgotten in recent initiatives to establish standards for

PR evaluation. As Brown has argued, there are “dominant narratives” in PR that produce a

“writing out” of other potential narratives that may be relevant and important (2006, p. 206). It is

argued here that revisiting this disciplinary home of evaluation and rediscovering this lost

heritage can provide theoretical frameworks and practical tools to overcome the long-standing

stasis and deadlock in PR evaluation and inform the search for standards.

Methodology

This analysis is based on historical research examining the development of PR evaluation

models and methods informed by literature review, interviews, and autoethnography, combined

with critical comparative analysis of findings vis-à-vis documented ‘best practice’ program

evaluation. While program evaluation is now conducted across a wide range of fields, as noted

by Rossi, Lipsey and Freeman (2004, p. 6), it has been a particular focus of study and

development in public administration and to some extent in and organizational development.

Relevant literature is reviewed across three fields: public relations evaluation;

communication and media studies, which is a disciplinary home from which much PR theory is

derived; and program evaluation. Interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of authors

who were prominent in the field of PR evaluation during the period studied, including eminent

figures such as Walter Lindenmann, Emeritus Professor Tom Watson, and authors of the

landmark UK Institute of Public Relations ‘Toolkit’ and the International Public Relations

Association Gold Paper on Evaluation (IPRA, 1994). Interviews were undertaken in an

unstructured, open-ended format as is applicable to exploratory qualitative research and were

conducted mostly informally using a mixture of telephone and e-mail communication.